Get DocType Fields

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only restates the core action and adds a generic scoping phrase, providing no deeper behavioral detail (e.g., whether hidden fields are included, return format, authentication needs). This is barely beyond a tautology and offers minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple, single-purpose tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves ambiguity about what 'field definitions' includes (e.g., field names only vs. full metadata with types, mandatory flags) and how it overlaps with get_doctype_meta. Additional details about the return payload would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully describes the only parameter ('doctype' as 'ERPNext DocType'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond echoing the scoping, so it meets the baseline without enriching parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('field definitions') and scoping ('for a specific DocType'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_doctypes (list of doctypes) and get_doctype_meta (metadata for a doctype), making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied: the agent can infer this tool is for retrieving field definitions for a given DocType. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, such as how this differs from get_doctype_meta or when to prefer it over other field-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.